Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @01:23PM
from the now-just-work-on-their-counting-skills dept.

A Stanford Professor has put down an idea (and also co-wrote a 620-page book for those who are that interested) on how to update the often criticized Electoral College system for presidential elections. Under the proposed system participating states would form a compact to throw all Electoral College votes behind the winner of the national popular vote regardless of which candidate won in any individual state. This proposed system would also make it much easier to bring the system up to date since it would not require a constitutional amendment to change or disband the Electoral College.

this system could possibly yield better voter turnout...if someone who wanted to vote republican lives in a traditionally "blue" state, they might not have voted knowing their vote wouldn't matter. if everyone's vote counted the same in the entire country, however, that person would be more likely to go to the polls.

this system could possibly yield better voter turnout...if someone who wanted to vote republican lives in a traditionally "blue" state, they might not have voted knowing their vote wouldn't matter. if everyone's vote counted the same in the entire country, however, that person would be more likely to go to the polls.

What about those of us living in 'blue' states, who want to vote 'green'? Our votes already don't matter. Something drastic needs to happen before any of these current shenanighans are going

Personally, I think voting should be MANDATORY for all citizens, but I don't think that will happen either.

So you want millions of uninformed uncaring citizens to start determining national policy? The solution is to education people so that they want to vote, not force people to vote on things they know nothing about.

What makes you think the voters that are already at the polls are educated or informed? There is a reason polls are conducted during working hours in the US. The politicians know that the vast majority of people voting are senior citizens. Let's see, we rely on people who are generally uninformed or misinformed, have little remaining intellectual capacity, and generally refuse to alter their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence. That sounds just like our political system, doesn't it?

The politicians know that the vast majority of people voting are senior citizens.

There aren't enough senior citizens for them to make up the vast majority of voters in the US. Sure, a larger percentage senior citizens vote than other age groups, but that doesn't make them the vast majority of voters.

The polls in most states are open at least 12 hours, and if that still doesn't work for you could get an absentee ballot.

What makes you think the voters that are already at the polls are educated or informed?

What the hell are you talking about? You're confusing the influencing force that drives people to vote with whether or not people are smart enough to make a "smart" vote.

There is a reason polls are conducted during working hours in the US. The politicians know that the vast majority of people voting are senior citizens.

The last time I voted for President, I voted at 7 or 8PM. You're right though, it is a conspiracy to keep the seniors and AARP in charge.

Let's see, we rely on people who are generally uninformed or misinformed, have little remaining intellectual capacity, and generally refuse to alter their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence. That sounds just like our political system, doesn't it?

This is the silliest of all your statements right here. What you mean to say is that these people refuse to alter their beliefs in favor of your own. They are uninformed or misinformed according to your standards.

Don't get me wrong here, there are plenty of stupid people in the world who subscribe to ridiculous beliefs. Our system right now limits us to two parties (generally) which I think is both good and bad. It is good because it does not allow a nut-case with a majority vote which represents a significant minority of the country get into office. It is bad because it does not provide enough diversity for political beliefs. On the other hand, the two party system does produce a significant middle ground of swing-voters who can go either way.

I always raise an eyebrow when I see someone suggest that everyone be forced to vote. My first question to them is: Why? My second question to them is: How? Then I ask them to research Latin American countries that force their entire populace to vote and fine them if they do not. Take Peru for example. Peru recently elected Alan Garcia [wikipedia.org], a former Peruvian President whom during his first administration was caught in a huge bribery scandal and managed to drive the Peruvian Sol's inflation up 2.2M% (thats 2.2 MILLION PERCENT!!). This threw the country into serious turmoil which terrorist organizations fed upon. It wasn't until Fujimori that the country stabilized, only to get thrown to the shitter again after Fujimori decided to bribe the entire Treasury dept and leave for Japan (a country that does not extradite citizens) with the entire national budget of Peru, bankrupting the country. Ironically though, Fujimori's bankrupting of the country had less of an effect on the country than Garcia's hyperinflation.

So how exactly do the Peruvian citizens elect such corrupt individuals? The answer, IMHO is that they are generally uneducated and are fined if they do not vote. So they vote for the person who has the most popular last name and promises to get him and all his buddies jobs in his government. The fine for not voting something like $50/election which is an enormous amount of money for a poor person in Peru. They have no choice but to make an uneducated decision.

Actually, proposals for mandatory voting aren't as crazy as they sound. All of the quasi-sane ones also put a "blank vote" on the ballot. That way, you can say "I don't support either candidate (or have any idea what's going on), but I want my vote to count".

Mandatory voting would eliminate any barriers to inequality as well. In the 2004 Presidential election, many people criticized Republicans (especially in Ohio) of not having enough polling stations in black communities. As a result, the lines were extremely long, and many black individuals eventually gave up after literally HOURS of waiting in line. Mandatory voting would bring these issues more to light. Since you're forcing people to vote, you inherently eliminate all barriers.

This also includes socioeconomic factors. Many people, especially those with multiple jobs, literally don't have the time to vote. Lots of those people don't know about absentee ballots, and/or don't know how to get them.

Finally, we wouldn't be the first. After World War I, they lost over 60,000 citizens. They felt that the freedoms their soldiers fought for shouldn't be thrown away. As a result, they implemented mandatory voting, and it's worked well for them so far, not to mention the voter turnout increase from 59% to over 95%.

Even if you can't vote for some reason, they send you a postcard in the mail after the election. If you give them a legitimate excuse, they don't fine you.

Another idea is to make election day a national holiday, like it is in *every* country except the US. Close everything down, except the polls. A lot of us have to actually *work* for a living, and we can't afford to lose an entire day's pay to sit in line at the polls...but our jobs do give us paid holidays. If they'll shut everything down for the commercial BS of Christmas, they can certainly shut everything down for election day.

You do know that your employer is required by law to give you time off to vote, don't you?

That is nice to know, but I think we should celebrate elections much we do other holidays. Voting should be a celebration, but not a hassle or a burden where we have to stand up and ask our employers time off when we know it will be 6 hours in line at the polls.

That is nice to know, but I think we should celebrate elections much we do other holidays. Voting should be a celebration, but not a hassle or a burden where we have to stand up and ask our employers time off when we know it will be 6 hours in line at the polls.

It's not our fault your state hasn't taken Oregon's lead in abolishing the voting booth altogether. You get six weeks to vote, and you can vote anywhere you choose as long as you get your ballot back to county elections by 7PM on the last day of t

Another idea is to make election day a national holiday, like it is in *every* country except the US.

No, it isn't. Here in the Netherlands we always vote on a wednesday, except when election day coincides with a religious day, in which case we vote on the tuesday before it. Nothing is closed, everybody goes to work, voting is not mandatory, and we still have a voter turnout of 80% for parliament. We obviously have no presidential election in a monarchy.

The most important difference is obviously that we use a proportional voting system, and your vote counts for your candidate regardless of where you live.

A lot of us have to actually *work* for a living, and we can't afford to lose an entire day's pay to sit in line at the polls

We hardly ever have lines at polling stations though, and nearly everyone, except for the most remote farms, votes at a station in walking distance from his house. It is just a matter of having very small polling districts, which is basically a function of the number of election committee volunteers available per capita.

I always thought it funny that Americans think people standing in line for bread or soap is a sign of a failed political system, while they think nothing of standing in long lines to exercise their democratic rights. The message it communicates is that democracy in the US is apparently an artificially scarce good.

"What would stop a politician from going to a heavily populated city such as New York or L.A. and promising..."

I know...this is the very thing that keeps me from wanting to do away with the Electoral Collge...and go just to popular vote. The lessor populated states would lose their voices basically to a few east and west coast states...and Texas.

The EC allows for each state to have enough voice in the vote and be important enough for the candidates to have to listen to their needs and visit with them (at least in theory).

You gotta remember...this is a union of STATES, each one actually, is similar to a small country joined together with the other states. And as large and varied as the cultures, resources and environments as the US is...this isn't necessarily a bad thing. People in Maine have distinctly different outlooks and needs than someone in Texas or Alaska, and that should be addressed by the candidates...although I'll admit, that has faded to a large extent. But, doing away with the EC or this proposal making popular vote the way, doesn't sound right.

However, I would think that possibly breaking up each states Electoral Votes proportionally to the votes within EACH state...would be more fair....I could see that being a better modification.

If you can file your taxes online, why not vote online? Some people say that it couldn't be secure, or that there's no way to implement it, but if they can do taxes online they can certainly do that. Brazil implemented internet voting awhile ago, if they can do it there's no reason the US can't.

Brazil doesn't have Diebold as a viable political force, and at a national level supports open source software. Don't even begin to think that can happen in a country owned by it's corporations.

So you want millions of uninformed uncaring citizens to start determining national policy? The solution is to education people so that they want to vote, not force people to vote on things they know nothing about.

I have personal opinions and think I'm pretty well informed, but my attendance record at the polls is spotty. Why? Because one vote doesn't matter. There is absolutely 0% chance that my single vote will sway the Presidential election, because they can't even count within that margin of error,

We Americans don't live in a true democracy; we live in a constitutional republic. It was intentionally designed so that rule by the majority (a.k.a. the "tyranny of the majority" in the words of one founding father) is blunted. In fact, that was, specifically, one of the reasons for the creation of the Electoral College. In the event of the public being tricked into voting extremely unwisely, (voting for someone that intends to dissolve the government and set up a dictatorship or theocracy for example) there is someone there to make a reality check.

An example of the weakness of a true democracy is that, as I have seen mentioned by someone else on Slashdot in the past, 50.0000000000001% of the population could, potentially, vote to have the remaining portion of the American public executed because they don't like them (for whatever reason. race religion, etc.). In the U.S., that pesky thing called the Constitution would stop you from implementing that plan. Of course you could, theoretically, amend the constitution but I have heard arguments to the extent that amendments aren't capable of running counter to the content of the body of the constitution and, either way, you would then need much more that a simple majority.

In the end, everyone is supposed to be able to vote if they want to and, with some limited and controversial exceptions, (like prison convicts) they have that ability. On the other hand, as someone else mentioned, to simply force all people to vote, whether they want to or not, would be neither good for our society as a whole or an accurate implementation of even true democracy. If you really think about it, not showing up at the voting booth is a form of abstention and abstaining is a perfectly legitimate vote (especially if you don't know enough to make an informed decision)

It was intentionally designed so that rule by the majority (a.k.a. the "tyranny of the majority" in the words of one founding father) is blunted. In fact, that was, specifically, one of the reasons for the creation of the Electoral College. In the event of the public being tricked into voting extremely unwisely, (voting for someone that intends to dissolve the government and set up a dictatorship or theocracy for example) there is someone there to make a reality check.

Exactly! According to the original design, the public is not supposed to be voting for the President at all. The public is supposed to vote for their representatives in state government, and then their state government is supposed to choose electors who then choose the President. Heck, for that matter, we originally didn't even have direct election of US Senators -- they were chosen by the state legislature too!

In my opinion, that was actually a better system than we have now, for two reasons. First, it would stop the presidential election from being a "popularity contest" as it is today (e.g., ever since television the winning candidate tends to be the one with better looks), and second, it would increase the importance of local elections.

On a practical level, one benefit the electoral college gives us is isolating debacles like Florida in 2000. Imagine if we had a direct popular vote, and we were within a few thousand votes. We would have had the madness in Florida going on in 50 different states.

How many times have you seen presidential candidates fighting over, say, North Dakota? How about Massachusetts? California? Texas? Oklahoma? I'm guessing none. North Dakota is too small to be bothered with, while the other four are so locked in to one party or another that the candidates don't have to worry about swaying voters in that state.

Now look at Ohio and Florida. They're swing states, where every vote counts because the race will invariably be close. They're also very populous, so winning or loosin

An example of the weakness of a true democracy is that, as I have seen mentioned by someone else on Slashdot in the past, 50.0000000000001% of the population could, potentially, vote to have the remaining portion of the American public executed because they don't like them (for whatever reason. race religion, etc.). In the U.S., that pesky thing called the Constitution would stop you from implementing that plan

Wouldn't hurt to read up on how other countries actually handle it before making comparisons. Coun

"I think that this brings up the issue of why our federal government deals with every teeny tiny issue. The interstate
commerce clause leads the way in legislative abuse."

I agree wholeheartedly....and I wish something could be done to dial this back down!!! It has been bastardized to allow the Feds to basically sneak their way into most matters the the original founders would have thought to be best determined by the states themselves. If you don't like the way one state does it...move to the next.

I'm not talking about votes here, I'm talking about how the system treats the people who are voting. It's too easy then for a politician to simply ignore the parts of the country with low populations. They can just hit the major cities, flood the larger states with more TV ads, and that's it.

If I could vote for "none of the above" and if enough people did it it would them find another contender... then I'd be truly interested.But these days I can't decide between one vile reprehensible scum bag and another. Nearly daily I stand in awe seeing how these people are fucking up an otherise perfectly fine contry. I am beginning to think we'd be better off deciding law and foreign policy with one of those ping pong ball lottery machines.

All third parties represent the interests of far more people than actually vote for them. People don't vote for third party candidates because they think their votes don't matter. The sad part is that they're right.

this system could possibly yield better voter turnout...if someone who wanted to vote republican lives in a traditionally "blue" state, they might not have voted knowing their vote wouldn't matter. if everyone's vote counted the same in the entire country, however, that person would be more likely to go to the polls.

Or, rather, it could do the opposite. A voter could be in a state with a small population where his vote would count more. Perhaps he would be in a state that is nearly split down the middle, and his vote may matter more with the electoral college than with the gross sum voting system. The electoral college is there to give each region (state) as much power as the next region in the federation, creating a balance of power in the federal level.

Doing it that way everywhere would certainly yield an electoral college result that is significantly more representative of the collective will of each state's voters.

Further, the electors of the electoral college are representatives of the various states, and therefore state laws govern their actions. You'd need a constitutional amendment to change that, and all bets are off if that happens.

The solution is neither to change the constitution, nor to have each state's electors vote for the national majority, but rather to implement the electoral college the way the constitution originally defined it

I find this to be the solution to most voting complaints. Most things can and should be solved at the state level. People who strongly desire imposing a universal solution on all 50 states like proportional systems, and like the idea of getting rid of the electoral college, and speak disdainfull

I think that's about the biggest problem with the current US election system. Most democracies/constitutional monarchies I know about have more than two relevant parties while the USA don't.

As a US citizen, I think the two-party system is one of our greatest strengths. At it's core, a two-party system is a huge moderating force, as both parties are forced towards the middle to appeal to the largest number of voters. Candidates cannot merely cater to an extremist minority faction and win an election with a

This is a fantastic idea which seems to have the ability to cut down on red tape and electoral disputes while more aaccurately projecting the wishes of the population onto the American government. And that's precisely why it'll never get anywhere close to implementation by the very people kept rich and powerful by the current system.

Still, Professor Koza might as well get something for his troubles. Someone slice up a banana for him, and put his favorite video on.

The U.S. government was not supposed to "project the wishes of the American people". The U.S. government was supposed to keep agressive people from "projecting their wishes" on other unwilling innocent people. The U.S. government was supposed to be peacemaker and guardian of individual liberty, not dictator and grand potentiate.The U.S. government was designed to be limited. It has fallen far short of that ideal and has become quite authoritarian... but making it even more top-down centralized is not going

You're thinking along similar lines to me. If anything, I'd much rather see electoral votes divided in a state, either based on popularity or congressional district. We already have candidates that only pay attention to the most populous areas of the states with the most electoral votes. Going with a national popularity contest would just make the problem worse, and basically disenfranchise huge numbers of voters. Making a candidate actually WORK for each and every electoral vote would mean no more "let

This would effectively give a small number of states control over the electoral system. Looks like your candidate won't be winning the popular vote? Have states that might otherwise support him drop out of the system, either causing the system to collapse or become ineffective. A few states dropping out would then cause a chain reaction of other states dropping out to counteract the problem.The electoral college is in many ways a bad idea in modern times, but a constitutional amendment is the best way to

States like MA that have consistantly voted Democrat since, forever, would probably not join anything like this. Other states that always vote Republican would probably do the same. The only states where their people would feel they have something to gain would be those that are consistantly "too close to call". Otherwise, it's betting too much state power on something that could only have a downside.

I agree, the only way to fix the electoral college is a constitutional amendment.

So basically, their plan to update the Electoral College is to give the presidency to the winner of the popular vote? Isn't that more of a removal than an update, since that would make the College useless?

It's not just semantics. It's counter to the very idea of States' rights. While the EC was meant to approximate the elective power of each state according to their population, it reserves the right of each state to allot their votes as they choose. Most states have a winner-take-all system, but at least one state splits its EC votes according to the popular vote in that state.

The author of this idea should focus on convincing states to implement a better system for assigning the votes of their electoral college reps. Taking the power of this choice from the states is just one more way that we're seeing a homogenization of states that, IMO, benefits only the majority.

I love how fruity the left land of silliness is! How about this for the importance of the Electoral college? Make the State Senates vote for the US Senators; that would put a bee in their bonnet!---You can also create new lines here if you wantGenerated by SlashdotRndSig [snop.com] via GreaseMonkey [mozdev.org]

The whole point of the "United States" is that we are a federation of 50 states. That means that we have intentionally crafted a system in which each state gets a certain minimum representation, both in Congress and in selecting a president. Proposals such as this would change the rules under which smaller states joined the union; their voices would cease to be heard.

If this is really the way we want to go, then we should eliminate state government, replace it with regional governors to attend to regional issues, and stop pretending that states matter.

Except the states are not being represented in the CURRENT SYSTEM. In the current system, states don't elect presidents, people do. Gradually over history, state governments decided that they didn't really want to elect the presidents, and instead decided to pass the buck to the populations of their states. If you want the states to be represented, then you should support a movement to eradicate popular elections entirely and have the state legislatures decide directly what electors they want to send to the college.

As it currently stands, the people are electing the president, but we are treating them as if the states are the ones doing it. The power has already been voluntarily transfered from the states to the people, but the voting system does not acknowledge this in any way.

Federalism is a good idea. It is a good idea to have certain aspects of governance be adminstered by local subgovernments. But that is all states are: local subgovernments. And as it currently stands, the local subgovernments have no direct impact on which president is elected. But the system treats elections as if they did. Thus the problem.

States are only "artificial" if you have no concept of American history and have never traveled through the United States. People from other countries don't understand regional or state-specific differences in the U.S. Moreover, American history is taught with poorer and poorer standards, and with less focus on state history. For instance, I received no education in Maryland history even though I attended high school there. So even Americans don't understand why we have states instead of a unitary government.

Division of power between a number of levels and branches of government is fundamental to the liberal philosophical tradition. Read Locke and Montesquieu. Liberal institutions which diffuse power to intermediate and co-equal entities is essential in preventing the centralization of power. It is centralized power that is far more prone to abuse than decentralized power--that should be obvious. Why then would you want to eliminate the substantive role of state divisions, when they are there to fundamentally split power, prevent swaying of the masses through temporary demagogy, and check the central government?

States are only "artificial" if you have no concept of American history and have never traveled through the United States. People from other countries don't understand regional or state-specific differences in the U.S.

In 1776 there were only 13 states. This means the United States is older than the vast majority of individual states. How can you rationalize the electoral college on something as specific as state history, when most of the state history that matters now hadn't even occurred when the system was devised?

It is centralized power that is far more prone to abuse than decentralized power--that should be obvious.

...and the electoral college is clearly more centralized than the popular vote. Nobody is talking about dissolving states' self-determination, only making individuals' votes count equally in national elections.

Mass appeals aren't going to be the order of the day - statewide crude mass appeals are already the order of the day because minorities are unrepresented, and the great thing about PR is that it gives such minorities the overall mass that they can't be ignored, and so mass appeals simply won't work.

This is incorrect. Since the United States is not a parliamentary system, politicians would pander to the largest mass of voters: white, middle class, suburban, Christian. They would have little to gain from

Without this compromise the United States would never have been created. States such as Rhode Island, Conneticut, New Hampshire, basically the smaller states would never have ratified the constitution without these provisions.

Federalism is about the states having power. It's also about the Federal Government being limited in its scope, something that most of us ignore these days. See the 10th Amendment to the constitution sometime. Revel in the fact it is a dead letter.

States do matter. Without the states there would be no United States. Sometimes one really wishes the South won the War of the States... Certainly not for the sake of salvery, but because it was a war about a limited federal government. Oh well...

Actually if you read the papers about the arguments, the people who argued hardest for the Electoral College is actually the South. The South had huge populations, but incredibly small populations of eligible voters (White Land owning men). Because of the changes in who is eligible, this bit of history has been erased. Partial reasons for including the Electoral College as written in the Constitution (see the 3/5ths rule right in the middle of it), is so that the South would get authority commesurate wit

I was in Mexico on election day. I was espousing the idea to my inlaws there that none of their current political mess would have happened if only their federal system were *truly* federal and they had a well-working electoral college system similar to our own.There's STILL no declared presidential winner there, and the losing idiot is still calling for marches, making unsubstantiated accusations, and not giving the legitimate government there a chance to function and do its job. He claims "the will of the

This isn't an abstract line in the sand, it is the principle on which this country was founded. Take that away and we might as well resport to the solution I referenced previously, do away with the fiction of "states" and make the US one big country with one government.

I think the problem, and the reason these sorts of proposals keep getting raised, is because, in many ways, the US already has become one big country with one government. Yes the states remain, and so do state governments, and indeed they sti

Bzzztttt. Wrong answer. The Civil War was largely an economic and social clash between the rising industrial capitalists, and the declining agrarian oligarchs. This manifested itself in disagreements about slavery (which promoted the southern agrarian economy, but hurt the northern industrial economy), and about tarifs on imported industrial goods (the north wanted tarifs on foriegn industrial goods in order to expand American industrialism, the south wanted free trade to trade cotton to England in exchange

Isn't it interesting that each example cited above is an example of groups that vote strongly Democratic.

You didn't include lists like "gun enthusiasts, stock traders, CEOs, and religious fundamentalists". This shows where your bias comes from.

Note that you didn't hear an outcry about the electoral college when Clinton took the White House with 43% of the popular vote in 1992

That's because he got more popular votes than any other candidate:

Clinton 43%
Bush Sr. 38%
Perot 19%

See? The guy with the most votes won. Even without the electoral college, Clinton was the winner. Interesting concept. Nobody said the winner had to have the majority of the votes, just more than any other candidate. Clinton got 5 million more votes than the next highest candidate. The will of the people was served. Hence, no uproar.

In 2000, the will of the people... as a whole... was that Al Gore be President. He got 500,000 more votes than any other candidate. That fact is incontrovertible.

Your hatred of Clinton notwithstanding, more Americans wanted him to be president than any other candidate... both times.

You're trying to confuse the issue. Kennedy got more POPULAR vote than Nixon in 1960 by the way... by 100,000.

Abolition of the Electoral college would have STILL meant JFK won in 1960 and WJC won in 1992 and 1996. Actually, abolition of the Electoral College would have meant that every election in the past century would have gone EXACTLY as it went... with the exception of 2000.

Any time there is a viable third candidate, no candidate will get 50%. That's a mathematical fact. It doesn't detract from the basic fairness that says "the guy with the most wins".

No amount of spinning will change the fact that America, by a narrow margin, rejected Bush in 2000. If a vote were somehow held today, Bush would make McGovern in 1972 look like a landslide winner.

Nobody said the winner had to have the majority of the votes, just more than any other candidate.

Actually, that's exactly what the rules say currently. Whereas you think the rules should say the candidate that gets a plurality of the "popular" vote should be declared the winner, our current Constitution says that the candidate must get a majority of the Electoral College or House vote to be declared the winner. I don't much care which system we use... each has its own benefits and drawbacks, on both theoretical and practical levels. In either system, you can find corner cases that result in "unfair" outcomes or where the winning candidate "lost" the "real vote". The point is simply that the current rules do, in fact, require majority... and that's one of its strengths.

That's because he got more popular votes than any other candidate:Clinton 43%Bush Sr. 38%Perot 19%

I would like to point out something implied by these numbers that also speaks against the electoral college.

Roughly 1/5th of the total votes were for a 3rd party candidate. One fifth. It's been a long time since that happened, and never in recent times has a 3rd party candidate looked stronger. And yet, on the only scoreboard that matters, the electoral votes, Perot got zero. He didn't even show up. What d

"the war was fought to preserve the union, and "union" was understood, even then, to be the equal partnership of the several states in a federal system. if you don't like the idea of the "United States", that's fine; work to change us to something else. But don't rewrite or misinterpret history."History HAS been rewritten by the winners (as they always do). The war was about taxation. at the time there was no federal income tax. The fed got its money through tariffs on imported goods. The South was an agrar

Really, all this represents is a way to getting in Proportional Representation via the back door, with all the advantages and disadvantages that PR provides - and in a way that can bypass any wingeing states/parties who might complain about reductions to their political importance.

Not to say that this is a bad idea, but just to note that it's only the method here that is new, not the end result.

That's the worst idea ever. The president was NEVER supposed to be elected by popular vote. The Framers hated that idea to the core. It's a bit of a "states rights" thing but it's up to the states individually to determine how they will cast their votes. There's nothing in the Constitution itself that says people are suppose to vote for senators or presidents. To the Framers, that choice was supposed to be made by the officially elected state government. That way somebody smart, and already elected once was making the choice for who the next higher up officeholder would be. On the surface it seems anti-democratic, but in reality, many of our Federal govt problems are directly related to Federal elections and officers being separate and disconnected from the lower branches of government. Think of how fast all the issues with Bush would be resolved if he and the senate had to answer not just to the idea of "voters" but to specific branches of state government.. Where would we be if our state legislatures or governors could call our Federal Senators on the carpet and demand their votes the way the States demand it to be because they appointed them, not the voter sheep. We'd see a much higher quality of govt if the feds were responsible to somebody local not "everybody" in a nebulous get elected next term way.

I would disagree with you. First and foremost, the framers set up the constitution to be ammended with the times because they knew that they couldn't think of everything. What the Framers envisioned 220 years ago is not necessarily applicable today. They never could think of the internet or TV. The population as a whole is now not as nebulous as you describe due in large part to the forums like the one we are using now to discuss the issues across the nation. The internet links us together and can be used t

I can't remember if the Constitution specifically required Senators to be selected by the state governments, but it took a constitutional amendment to force (permit?) direct election.Senators can still be temporarily replaced by the state government, with the next general election selecting the person to serve out the rest of the term. Representatives have to be replaced by special elections.

This was an important point after 9/11. Had a loaded plane hit the Capitol while Congress was in session, you might

The president was NEVER supposed to be elected by popular vote. The Framers hated that idea to the core.

The framers of the constitution, for all that they believed in democracy, didn't really trust it to the extent that we do today, since no one really had any experience with running an entire country on democratic principles. The biggest lesson they took away from the ancient Greek polis and the Roman republic was how susceptible it was to being taken over by a charismatic leader and turned back into a monarchy.

The Electoral College was a mechanism put in place to prevent the rise of populist demagogues, on the assumption that the elected officials at the state levels would be less likely to be swept up in mob psychology furor to throw over the democratic structures in order to put a hero on the throne.

Note - I am replying to a whole bunch of posts in general in this one not just yours - I don't want you to get the impression that I am putting words in your mouth.

Many of the original intentions of the founders no longer apply to the extent that they once did.

Yes, the founders originally intended to create a system that balanced direct democracy and rule by the Gentry class. Back then, the only people with any education to speak of were the wealthy. The only ones with opportunities to apprentice into government were the wealthy. Therefore they were the only ones fit to govern. That is no longer the case - we have universal (if mediocre) primary education, and anyone who shows merit and initiative can get an excellent university education, regardless of their class. While most politicians continue to come from political families, many others have risen from low beginnings, and have served the country well. The balances meant to keep the gentry in power are no longer necessary or beneficial.

Yes, the founders intended for the states to have more influence on the selection of national leaders, but they also intended for the scope of the national government to only deal with large inter-state issues that the individual states could not. Things like interstate and international trade, treaties, and national defense. The federal government has greatly exceeded those original aims, and now passes laws, collects taxes, and runs social programs that directly affects the individuals in our country, rather than indirectly though the states. Therefore, the citizens should have direct representation in the federal government, rather than indirectly through the states.

Yes, the founders originally created a system where representation was dolled out according geo-political boundaries, both in national government, within the individual states. But at the time, opinions and interests were very much clustered geographically. The difficulty of travel, the tightly knit communities, and the fact that the economies of each location was determined largely by it's natural resources, led to this. Again, this is something that no longer applies to the extent that it did when our country was founded. Now opinions on national issues vary as much between members of a community as they do between communities, and only the most popular opinions from each location get any representation in congress. Geographic representation used to promote a wide spectrum of views in congress, now it marginalizes them.

I agree that it is still useful for the states to have some degree of representation. My opinion is that for presidential elections the states should each have two votes corresponding to the two Senators, while the votes corresponding to Representatives should be determined by the popular vote. This would keep the current feature of smaller states having more influence than they otherwise would, while getting rid of the winner-takes-all garbage that turns elections into a political game and joke, rather than an accurate reflection of the will of the people.

I would even go so far to entertain the idea of electing the lower house itself according to some system of proportional representation, rather than districting. Why does my small arbitrarily (or gerrymandered) district need its own representative in Congress of United States of America? Really, now - are the views of its 0.25% of the population that much more different from the rest of the state to merit its own representation in the federal government? And yet a political party which holds over 10% of the registered votes - that represents views held by at least 10% of the population - by cannot get a single seat out of the 435 in the House.

Enacting proportional representation in the House, while maintaining state election(of populus or legislature) in the Senate, would preserve a balance between state (locally clustered) interests, and popular (distributed) interests. It would also break up the current two party syst

The electors, who are actually elected federal office holders, albeit with a very short term and only one permitted act, cannot be bound by any state or federal law to vote one way or another. It's not possible to prevent 'rogue' electors from voting for anyone they wish, anymore than it's possible for a state legislature to force the state's senators and representatives to vote a particular way on a bill.

Right now, electors represent the party of the candidate they pledge (i.e. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc). You would have to change this to non-partisan electors who agreed to vote with the national popular vote. And even then, you could not guarantee that the electors would do that, since they can't be forced to vote one way or another

The only way you will ever change this is to ammend the Constitution. And it's not clear that it should be changed. The Electoral College reduces the weight of large states and increases the weight of the small states, which makes it less likely a candidate will try to run up huge numbers in CA, NY, FL, TX, OH, VA and other large states so he/she can ignore the smaller states. Right now, you gain nothing from winning NY with say 70% of the vote vs 50%+1. That helps keep a few large states from dominating the process - the leveling effect limits their impact.

Of course, I know a lot of people don't agree with me. But that's no surprise, they mostly object to my calls to repeal (among others) the 17th Amendment and restore a true federal system.

I'd be curious to see how enforceable the contract turns out to be. I can imagine a state changing its mind midway through the voting, or secretly changing its vote, or something. If the other states sue to enforce the contract, would it prove valid?

It does make recounts rather a mess. One advantage to the electoral college system is that as messy as the Florida recount was, at least it was in only one state. The election of 2000 was very close even in popular terms, and without the electoral college every single state would have ended up having a recount, because every single vote would matter. But gosh, other countries manage to work it out.

The states that have already talked about signing on are big states: California, New York, Colorado, Illinois and Missouri. States who are under-represented in the electoral college. The little states, who currently benefit from having their individual votes be worth nearly 3 times as much as a voter from California or New York, will pitch a major hissy fit.

I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect that such a scheme will tend to favor Democrats over Republicans, at least with the current distributions. Those small states tend to be red states. Certainly the one recent example where one can point to a candidate getting an advantage from the electoral college favored a Republican over a Democrat, so any attempt to swing it towards a proportional vote will be greeted in red states as an attempt to make it more blue.

Keep in mind that a "state compact" really is a treaty, but between American states instead of between countries. Actually, a state compact can also include a foriegn government as well.

The one thing that keeps them under control and from getting out of hand is that all state compacts must not only be approved by all state legislatures involved, but also by the U.S. Congress.... keeping the U.S. Consitutional issues in hand.

These compacts are usually done for rather mundane tasks like highway construction projects that cross state lines, school districts that take in kids from just across the state line, or other issues that would involve multiple states. Some good compacts I've seen allowed "in-state" tuition at a group of universities in a specific region. Minnesota in particular established seperate compacts to do just that with all of the neighboring states.

Even more bizzare was a compact between Minnesota and Mantoba, where an airport on the U.S./Canadian border was more cheaply extended across the international border by 1000 feet. It wasn't a huge airport, but the need was there to build the extra length of runway and make a joint state/province authority over the expanded airport. The state and provincial governments ran the airport, but it also needed federal authority from both national governments in order to get this to work.

Once states enter into a compact like this, it becomes enforceable almost like the U.S. Consitution, and states simply can't back out of it shy of fully repealing the compact by agreement with all of the people participating in that compact. Indeed, something like this ultimately has even more authority in fact than the U.S. Constitution as trying to get the whole thing renegotiated all over again after the compact is in legal force would be something next to impossible to accomplish. All told, I think a constitutional ammendment would be easier to negotiate because of this problem. SCOTUS doesn't let states get away with the same garbage that would be routine for the World Court.

I don't think we need to do away with the electoral college altogether. Allowing each state to have a minimum possible voice is valuable. New York and California already have a lot of electoral votes, but not entirely in proportion to their populations. The problems with the electoral college could be mitigated if only the votes from the college were more granular. As it is, in most states, the candidate that wins the popular vote in that state earns all of the electoral votes from that state. That means that 49% of a state's votes might "not count" in the final decision. As a citizen of Ohio, this problem was really driven home in the last presidential election. The two principle candidates were nearly equal in terms of popular vote, but the state's entire contribution was to George Bush. Let the two "senator" votes go to the popular majority, but let the "representative" votes be divided proportionally to the popular vote.

It's a "boil the ocean" solution; it doesn't work at all until it is fully operational. Nothing ever works like that with 50 states. This is also related to the next reason:

The benefits of cheating are too large once half or so of the electoral votes are in the agreement. The benefits of defecting, or threatening to defect, become large, because suddenly the votes become bargaining chips, useful to extract concessions from the other states. This makes it effectively impossible to get to all 50 agreeing anyhow; the more people in the agreement before it gets to 50, the larger the spoiler effect.

This would make things even worse, because of the horrible bargaining and politicing that would ensue around the electoral votes. Indeed, this would come to swamp the entire procedure, and the game would become getting the states to commit electoral votes, instead of convincing the people to vote for you. Hopefully, it's obvious why this is bad.

There's no idea so bad you can't extol its virtues for 600 pages.

Finally, to use the previous election for concrete names, do you really thing California is going to stand for seeing its electoral votes go to Bush? Or Texas for Gore? Unlikely.

One thing this proposal totally misses is the fact that the U.S. Constitution specifically set up the opportunity to disproportionally represent voters in smaller states over those in larger states, so that a Presidential candidate would have to appeal to voters of those smaller states like Wyoming, Hawaii, and Delaware in addition to major voting hubs like New York, Texas, Florida, and California.

There is no way a state compact could ever be made that would ignore this issue.

Of the various electorial vote distribution systems that have been proposed, I like Colorado's idea (that was voted down) as the best of the bunch, although the Nebraska & Maine system of having each congressional district determine their own "vote" does seem at least as an alternative. The current "winner takes all" approach that most of the other states use is really the source of some of the current problems.

Colorado actually proposed proportional electorial votes based on percentages of votes cast. That would mean states doing this would still get attention even if there was a huge percentage of voters in that state voting for one candidate, but one candidate could still just collect a few thousand more votes in order to get one more electorial vote from that state. Interestingly enough, Al Gore would have won in 2000 had this system been used in most states, and it is the democrats who don't want it changed.

It should be noted that the Bush campaign comittee specifically targeted the smaller states for electorial votes and it was a part of their strategy to win these "neglected by the Democrats" parts of the USA in order to win the presidential election. This strategy was specifically encouraged by design by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

Irrelevant; "Tennessee" as a distinct political entity did not exist in 1770 (and in any case the United States did not yet exist).

The actual ratio between largest and smallest states at the beginning of the Republic was 12.6:1 (1790 population of Virginia: 747610; 1790 population of Delaware: 59096), which is almost an order of magnitude smaller than the corresponding ratio today.

I actually went through the stats with Utah (a strongly republican state) and noted that Democrats would not only gain electorial votes from Utah with a proportional voting system in place, but with just a tiny amount of additional effort they would have also gained additional electorial votes simply by trying appeal to the voters. Most Utah voters that are Democratic (and many Republicans for that matter) don't even bother to vote for President simply because they already know the conclusion - it is going

My point being that, if we want to do maintenance to the codebase, let's go ahead and branch formally.
Pussyfooting around would draw out the process, and any hairsplitting and legalese generated would be used to do something completely sick and wrong that feels good to some minority, and then we'd all look back and say "Wow, that Electoral College thing looked good at the time, but the dumb ideas that followed sure turned out to have all the appeal of a cancerous, bleeding ulcer. Would that we had kept to

This strategy of the state going for the popular vote is very interesting, and I guess in a way it would work, but it doesn't fix the problem of misrepresentation. In fact, it would undoubtedly make it worse. The state would represent itself poorly if the majority of its votes were for one candidate, but the national popular vote forced them to vote for the other candidate. That's not fixing the electoral college problem; if you're going to use this system why even use the electoral college? I realize it's a possible workaround, but senators/representatives would never let this agreement happen in their own states.

What I think would be fair is a system that allows the electoral vote of an entire state be split. If a state counted as 7 votes, it would be allowed 3 to one candidate and 4 to another. This allows a much more proportional representation. There's absolutely no reason why votes should count more in Ohio/Florida than any other state. This method also allows independent candidates to actually have a chance. It's unfortunate that nothing like this will ever be passed in legislation today because of our stagnant political system full of selfish scum.

An interesting proposition, but I think efforts would be better spend on getting Congress to disband the electoral college and actually having a vote count as a vote.

The Electoral College was useful in the pioneer days when information took much longer to get from place to place. Not everyone had the opportunity to be informed, so they voted towards a certain party and the state threw all of its electoral votes behind the winner of that popular vote.

The modern day is much different. Information is instantaneous, and people are finding out every little nuance about politicians if they dig deep enough. While the modern citizen probably isn't well informed, they do have the ability now to be informed- they merely need to go to a library to use a comptuer for an hour, or read a few newspapers. This means that citizens can discern which candidate they want. Votes are tallied quickly with the use of punch cards and now electronic voting machines (faults aside). The public's vote should be the only thing that counts now.

is through the Maine-Nebraska Method [wikipedia.org]. Instead of a winner-take-all system (if a candidate wins a majority of electoral votes in a state, he gets all the state's votes), it splits it based on districts.

Remember: the number of electorates = # of Representatives + # of Senators

The 2 electoral votes that go towards Senators would go state-wide (like we have now). The "Representative" votes would be split based on the popular votes of the individual congressional districts of the state.

It fixes several problems of the current system. Your vote counts more, because the division isn't state-wide, but district-wide. At the same time, it doesn't make the division too small (individuals under a popular election). If each person's vote counts equally, then a candidate could win a couple of large states (California, New York, Texas), and win the election.

The Maine-Nebraska method also doesn't require a constitutional amendment.

Mod me to hell and back for this, but really, 230 years after this whole colonies thing, do we still need "states"?

I can see the value that not every region can agree upon certain laws, but the majority of thoses laws are being superceded by Federal laws at an increasing rate. And the ones that are still left up to the States are more semantic than anything else (employment law, pollution, etc).

California is moving towards a system less controlled by County government, which is increasing the state's efficiency by eliminating redundancy. This is a slow process, but one that I think will yield great returns over time. What would be so wrong with the States doing the same thing?

No... it would mean that the New York City resident's vote would count EXACTLY the same as the Wyoming rancher's vote. One each.

As it stands now, The average citizen in Wyoming is 1/160,000th of an electoral vote. The average citizen of New York State is about 1/300,000th of an electoral vote.

Why should the Wyoming citizen's vote count for twice as much as the New York citizen's vote?

One man (or woman)... one vote. Any system which gives greater weight to a citizen of one state's vote over the citizen of another state is a flawed system.

The electoral college system guarantees that the citizens of lightly-populated states like Wyoming, Montana, Deleware, and the Dakotas have a greater percentage say in who is the President than a citizen of California, Florida, New York, or Texas has.

That is a patently unfair system, and the only equitable system is one in which each of us has the same 1/280,000,000th say in who the next president is. That way, there won't be campaigning in just "swing" states... because every vote in every corner of the country counts the same. The Democratic candidate would have a reason to go to Texas and campaign... the Republican candidate would have a reason to go to Massachusetts to campaign... there are votes to be gotten there and they would count the same.

I am just as much a citizen of this country as some farmer in North Dakota is. His vote shouldn't be worth twice as much as mine.

Why should the Wyoming citizen's vote count for twice as much as the New York citizen's vote?

Because that was the way our founding fathers configured it. Intentionally.

Or perhaps I should say that our Founding Fathers configured it so that each state would have a say, not the individual. The only reason why a person in New York has a vote at all is because the state of New York decides that you have a vote. Comparing your vote to the fellow in Wyoming is ridiculous. He's voting for how his state's electoral

That is a patently unfair system, and the only equitable system is one in which each of us has the same 1/280,000,000th say in who the next president is.

No, you miss the point completely. The reason the the NYers vote counts 'less' is so that rancher out in the midwest doesn't have HIS rights trampled by the majority. Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule, and if you're NOT in the majority, you end up being screwed. That's EXACTLY why the electoral system is in place, to stop mob rule.

Please, go READ the words of the founders, they'll tell you exactly why mob rule is a bad idea. We are a Republic and NOT a Democracy for a very good reason.

No, you miss the point completely. The reason the the NYers vote counts 'less' is so that rancher out in the midwest doesn't have HIS rights trampled by the majority. Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule, and if you're NOT in the majority, you end up being screwed. That's EXACTLY why the electoral system is in place, to stop mob rule.

Sorry.. I get the point entirely.

My view: The inner-city merchant in the Bronx is as much a U.S. citizen as the rancher in Wyoming.

Your view: The inner-city merchant in the Bronx is less of a U.S. citizen than the rancher in Wyoming.

The Electoral college doesn't stop the "mob rule" scenario. It just rewards a different mob. It is the reason that Homeland Security money is being disproportionately given to communities with almost zero chance of being hit with a terrorist attack, at the expense of big cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Dallas.

Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule, and if you're NOT in the majority, you end up being screwed.

Really.. so it is preferable that the will of a MINORITY of the people supercede the will of the majority? Think about your statement. You are advocating that a "mob" made up of a minority of the people "screws" the majority. That system is better HOW?

The REAL heart of your argument is this... when the "decision makers" are made up of urban, inner-city folk that aren't like you... it's a mob. When the "decision makers" are made up of bible-thumping, gun-toting, rugged individualists that are a MINORITY of U.S. population, it's "what the founders intended".

Bullshit. If Gore would have gotten 1000 more votes in Florida in 2000, would the resulting government be "mob rule"? How is a government run by a man who CAME IN SECOND NATIONALLY less of a mob?

Prior to 1865, blacks in slave states were considered 3/5 of a person in deciding a state's representation in the Electoral College.

You are advocating for a system that says a California citizen is worth 1/3 of a Wyoming citizen in deciding a state's representation in the Electoral College.

As far as electoral standing goes, today's Californian is worth less than a pre-civil war slave.

Stop hyperventellating long enough to realize that what you really want is an even, full democracy. I would now like to introduce you to the four sociologically impossible forms of government for humans to successfully implement on a federal scale:

Communism

Democracy

Fascism

Anarchy

All four of these are perfect forms of government. All four of these are impossible to correctly implement with human beings. We are not a democracy. If you want your vote for the [INSERT FRINGE SINGLE ISSUE PARTY] party to c

First, you do realize that the body that actually makes the laws - Congress - isn't proportional to population either? Why aren't you crowing to fix that as well? There are 250,000 Wyoming representatives to each Senator, and 500,000 to each Representative - California has 600,000 to each Representative, and 15 million to each Senator. Montana gets royally screwed: they've got only 1 representative per 900,000 people, which means Wyoming voters count nearly twice Montana voters!The Senate is fixed (and unam

Yes, there is. An adjustable system that if taken to either extreme allows the "tyranny of the minority" and the "tyranny of the majority". Then, you just place the adjustable system right in the middle of the two, and you've got a system that's equally balanced between the two. And hey, if you want to be real smart, you set up two systems, one that's slightly dominated by the minority, and one that's slightly dominated by the majority, and check the two against each other, so that if the majority starts to

You're completely off base in re: the EC system. Actually, I suspect you are way off base in re: the Founding Fathers' thoughts on representative government. It's not "one man one vote" and it's not "don't let the little guy get trampled" -- it's "each state has electory power proportional to their population."

The tyranny of the masses or 'mob rule' is a problem -- but it's to be fixed at the state level, not the national. The reason NYers' votes count less is not to prevent the trampling of rights of t

No, you miss the point completely. The reason the the NYers vote counts 'less' is so that rancher out in the midwest doesn't have HIS rights trampled by the majority.

Don't forget that NY state consists of more than just NY city.

So what about the rancher in rural NY? His vote doesn't just count less, it doesn't count at all, because however the people in the city vote decides how the electoral votes of the entire state will be assigned. A NY city citizen has a vote worth 1/300,000th of an elector, a Wyomin

The thing is, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the goverment works and is *supposed* to work. Your vote is designed NOT to vote for the president. Even now you don't have a 1:280000000 voice for the choice; it's an illusion, and one that's not serving you well. That's not meant as a flame; way too much of our population suffers the same illusion.YOU DON'T VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. That's not screaming; I'm just too lazy to use em tags. States determine how electors are assigned, and it's as simple a

I love it. When ya'll have a nice majority in Congress and want to pass shit that those "pesky" blue-staters don't like, you go on and on about a mandate from the people and some bullshit about "majority votes." When someone might actually come along to level the playing field -- you push back.

That being said, I don't necessarily disagree. Our founding fathers had a SEVERE distrust the of the American Populace. The reason we have electors was because the "common-folk" weren't smart enough to vote for

Eh. There are advantages to the current system (which constantly get ignored by those who think that a pure popular vote is the One True Way (tm)).What you have to ask is "what do I want from the federal government?" As in, what's their job? What are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to be a true federal government, setting down laws for the people, framing their society based on their wishes? Or are they supposed to be a confederacy [wikipedia.org], letting smaller, more local governments frame society, and just sett

Am I wrong or was the electoral college not setup first to make it easier to tally the votes and who won?

Oh, you're quite wrong. The answer to the problem is in the name of our nation: "The United States of America"

Under the original constitution, each state was a separate entity with its own laws that banded together for common defense under a singular Federal entity. Federal powers were always intended to be weak so as to allow for the diversity present in each state governing itself.

The electoral college was setup because the states were concerned that they would not be fairly represented. The concern was that since New York had the largest population, all the elections would follow their desires without the opinions and diversity of the rest of the nation coming into play. As a result, the EC was developed to allow even the smallest state to have a bit of weight in their vote.

In case the implications of that aren't clear, let me spell it out: The electoral college is designed to NOT reflect the popular vote.

Sometimes the popular vote reflects the college vote (especially in the case of a landslide), but in many close races the two will differ. (e.g. Bush vs. Gore '00)

What's interesting is that the people demanding a change in the method used to count the vote is almost always the folks from heavily populated areas. i.e. The exact people the electoral college was setup to protect against. The concern is that these people have little understanding of other areas, and would do insurmountable damage to the rest of the nation. Considering that our food production as well as many forms of research and manufacturing are handled in rural areas, failing to represent them could be disasterous.

It helps voters living in low-population states.The correlation between the two (being a farmer or living in a low-population state) is very low. Connecticut or Rhode Island, for instance, are everything but rural states. But they have a low population thus they benefit a lot from the EC. On the other hand, Texas is a very rural state and is penalized heavily by the EC system.

I agree with you on one point : The electoral college is designed to NOT reflect the popular vote.

Failing to represent the small states? Bah! If the Senate and Congress stay they way they are, the small states still have plenty of representation in Washington.

Until some moron comes along and claims that it's "unfair" that the Senator from New York should have the same power as the Senator from Wyoming. Why don't we kick out all the checks and balances while we're at it?

I think the change would be positive, as it would give the majority of people control of one branch of government, while the majority of

Demogogs love this idea. The understand they only have to control California and New York and they can bend the entire country to their will.Part of the protection of the Senate, part of the protection of the electoral college is the protection of the smaller population states. This sidesteps that protection.

"The Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."